Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The proposed locations are Bardiya National Park and Karnali River Basin. Both areas contain high size of species rarity and key biodiversity. Geospatial data indicates that the proposed areas are less covered by intact forest landscape
Evidence B:KBA areas overlap
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The applicant does not describe potential carbon stock of the proposed location, but the geospatial data indicated that the proposed locations have an average 50 - 100 t/ha carbon density
Evidence B:in higher altitudes, significant and very high, lower altitude medium, average moderate
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The proposed areas are maintained by IPLCs with significant constraints due to modernization and climate change, natural disaster and unfavorable government policies.
Evidence B:Most of the areas are under government protected status, will some marginal allowance for indigenous management, areas outside of the parks have much higher rights recognised, but not contiguous due to parks
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The applicant described the proposed areas are culturally relevant for the IPLCs including for religious practice and livelihoods.
Evidence B:Not clear descriptions except traditional agriculture and livelihoods. cultural significance is less expressed.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The proposed locations encounter medium threat due to natural disaster, environmental pollution, geological condition, and restriction from the government agencies. Geospatial data does not indicate that the proposed locations face serious development pressures, forest change nor large-scale land acquisition.
Evidence B:Migration and human pressures from other communities
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Legal and policy frameworks actively promote conservation and indigenous peoples’ rights include the adoption of UNDRIP, Land Act, Forest Act, and National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.
Evidence B:Despite well described and active indigenous networks and organisations, legal opening or policy opportunities to increase recognition of conservation roles remain very limited. high-level conventions and international laws are ratified, national laws are in conflict.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The national government have implemented some supports for IPL-led conservation
Evidence B:Recognise in some policies, but conflicting laws, and conservation / protected areas viewed as government responsibility (and source of tourism revenue)
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The applicant describes some policy intervention, but it was not to clear that the applicant working at the grassroot level to empower IPLC-led conservation. It seems that the proposed project is intended to build a pilot project.
Evidence B:Few projects described, and not specific to conservation initiatives, or where conservation is an aim, not indigenous led.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: The applicant has been implementing some project for securing IPLCs’ land rights and adaptation to climate change.
Evidence B:Small.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposed activities are exceptionally well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to enhance IPLCs effort to steward land and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits.
Evidence B:Partially aligned, small scale, and focused on livelihoods rather than stewardship.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The proposed activities are clearly described with specific outcomes.
Evidence B:Well defined, and logical activity links, capacity building of indigenous organisations would be a core outcome. Political dialogues well conceived.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The proposed activities are partly relevant to overcome some threats, but the natural disaster as one of the important threats would be beyond applicant intervention.
Evidence B:Core issue of migration from outside mentioned above, not mentioned here. Other contributions (to legal reform, local livelihood support, conservation participation) are stronger.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The proposed activities are exceptionally well aligned with range of investment.
Evidence B:appropriate to the scale of activities planned
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The applicant does not convincingly describe potential resource mobilisation to support the implementation of the proposed project. But the applicant expect share budget from other NGOs and local governments.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The proposed locations are 105.741 hectares
Evidence B:Just at 100k ha
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Some livelihoods indicator are listed such as empowering rural economy through tourism and improving young IPLC members become entrepreneurs.
Evidence B:Livelihood focused, aligned with the project as conceived and designed
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The proposed activities expect to build long-term sustainability by creating institutions and policy to support IPLCs economic activities include creating an Indigenous Knowledge Fair.
Evidence B:benefits are sustained through higher capacities - a capacity development argument which is solid, but will require further funding
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The proposed project tangentially related to national priorities
Evidence B:National priorities for biodiversity not well described
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The applicant focuses on women participation in IPLC-led conservation and would introduce Gender and Social Inclusion (GESI) strategy in implementing the project
Evidence B:excellent analysis of a difficult gender context, well conceived ways of addressing it.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The proposed project highly potentially demonstrate innovative result based on women participation in the IPLC-led conservation.
Evidence B:Area covered is relatively moderate, and core threats are not addressed, main impact is capacity development, not clear how this will scale other than as an example
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The applicant is a woman NGO and project is designed to let IPLC obtain benefit from the project, but the IPLC involvement is not much explained in the EoI.
Evidence B:Led by indigenous organisation, NGOs and CSOs support
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The applicant has good leadership in policy advocacy, but it seems less information on the leadership of working with IPLCs
Evidence B:Strong leadership in indigenous rights, less in conservation initiatives
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Most of partner organisations listed for implementation of the proposed activities are NGOs. None of IPLC name listed, but might me location for implementation of the project indicated the name of IPLC communities.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The applicant has adequate skills and capacity for the implementation of the project but does not have experience with GEF projects
Evidence B:Gaps in conservation initiatives, met to some extent by CSO partners
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: the annual budget of the applicant is USD 151.063
Evidence B:Previous projects all smaller than this
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The applicant runs the European Commission project on land rights
Evidence B:EC standards, being met in existing projects